Making a File Server

[red-beard]

I picked up a cheap 1.8 ghz Computer ($59) with the intention of turning into a LAN file server for the house. I think it has Win 2000 on it. I also have 2 160 GB hard drives and a SATA card to install.

Should I stick with the Win 2000 or break down and install Linux onto the machine? I may also eventually use this for FTP and some personal webpages.

Other ideas, suggestions?

[stomachmonkey]

.nix

[87coupe]

+1

[widebody911]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

.nix

+3.14

[Mule]

2000 should work fine. The best would be Linux but you have to be familiar with it. Ask the Apple contingent there why virtually zero corp file servers are Apple?

[slodave]

Linux as well, but you may have a little learning curve. Win2000 will work, but with more overhead.

Most here like Ubuntu Linux. I am familiar with it, but don't use it as I use either Slackware or Redhat for customization and the fact that I have been involved with both communities for 10+ years now.

Linux is great for file servers storing Word, Excel, music... Unfortunately, it falls short with certain apps that you would likely see in a corporate environment. There are problems with QuickBooks. Any corporate app that needs to have a server install, would never work. Law offices are a good candidate for Linux as are architectural firms. Most doctors offices can run Linux and not have issues as well.

[87coupe]

Here you go http://www.knoppix.net
Download the iso, burn to CD, boot server from CD, run sambastart-knoppix.

workgroup "WORKGROUP", machine name is "KNOPPIX"

Your done

[id10t]

Linux or BSD.

With Windows as the host OS, unless you pay for extra licenses, you will be limited to 5 connections...

[Mule]

Ran Quickbooks for years with a linux server.

[Tim Walsh]

Nothing wrong with 2K for basic file sharing, it's pretty simple to share out a folder and then map that folder on the client machine.

I'm a big *NIX user, but I find Samba a pain to setup, but it works great once it's done. On the other hand, I haven't had to setup a samba server in over 5 y ears, a lot could have changed. Personally I use SSHFS to transfer files from my laptop to my desktop and vice versa, but that requires *NIX on both ends.

[id10t]

Tim - samba is trivial to set up with the SWAT web interface...

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by Tim Walsh

Nothing wrong with 2K for basic file sharing, it's pretty simple to share out a folder and then map that folder on the client machine.

I'm a big *NIX user, but I find Samba a pain to setup, but it works great once it's done. On the other hand, I haven't had to setup a samba server in over 5 y ears, a lot could have changed. Personally I use SSHFS to transfer files from my laptop to my desktop and vice versa, but that requires *NIX on both ends.

Can always go WebDAV. Really meant for collaborative work environments but works nicely for NAS applications as well.

Big fan of plain Jane FTP for bulk transfers with low overhead.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Linux. Without question. This is the exact setup I've been running for years. My file server is a dual-Pentium III board with multiple HDDs. It's rock-solid stable (I use Samba for the file access management with my Windoze workstation).

I used to run a web server, e-mail server, FTP server on the same box as well, and used it as my Internet gateway for a time until I bothered to get a router. Linux handles all those tasks flawlessly. I think I've had to reboot it maybe 3X in the last five years and that was either to upgrade hardware or move the box. I can't say enough good things about Linux.

The only caveat I'll give you is that there is a bit of a learning curve to it. You should be able to figure it out (lots of resources out there, but so many it can get confusing at times). If you're willing to spend some time configuring/learning, you can give yourself a VERY good system that's stable and inexpensive. Windoze anything is all about how much $$$ you shovel to Microsoft for their proprietary closed-source bloatware crap. I'd never run an MS server. Ever.

[Tim Walsh]

If you're setting up a machine from scratch linux does make sense(of my 3 machines I use on a regular basis at home, only 1 is windows and that's because some of my sysadmin tools are windows only.). BUT he's already got 2k installed, instead of an hour install/config + learning curve, to setup a file share, his current windows install takes about 30 seconds to setup the same thing.

[Paul_Heery]

I would stay away from Linux and just use FreeNAS if you are just looking for some shared storage for your LAN. It's based on FreeBSD and has an extremely friendly front end.

[azasadny]

I have a Windows Home Server (Based on Windows Server 2003) at home and it's easy to setup and maintain for a small, personal LAN server. It backs up 1-10 PC's and it doesn't need a lot of RAM, CPU, etc...

[red-beard]

Well, I "THINK" the PC has 2000 installed, I haven't turned it on yet. It just arrived yesterday from PacificGeek. $59 for a 1.8 GHZ Pentium with a 30GB hard drive. Add to that 2 x 160 GB hard-drives with a SATA card, and I should be good to go.

The problem is 2000 is no longer supported. I used Unix, way back in the 80's on a Vax.

[slodave]

Originally Posted by Mule

Ran Quickbooks for years with a linux server.

Try it with 2008 hot shot. Again, I don't make these things up. I deal with this on a day to day basis.

EDIT: It may work in a single user environment, 2008 does not work in a multi-user network environment, with Linux acting as a server.

[svandamme]

follow the perfect server doc to the letter


http://www.howtoforge.com/perfect_setup_ubuntu_6.06

[VincentVega]

If you stick with Windows made sure the patches are up to date and you go through at least some basic hardening. 2k had/has a ton of bugs, but most can be worked around.